Who is Really Behind the Document Leaks?

By Bridgette

Is it This Man?

Vladimir Putin, Russia's Prime Minister

Coming on the heals of Wikileaks’ document dump, and its suspiciously cherry-picked information, especially targeting Hillary Clinton and her diplomatic spy corps, it is noted that there was no information disparaging Obama. It is as though the little quips were embarrassing, but most wouldn’t cause a diplomatic incident unless those exposed were “thin skinned.” After all, most characterizations or suspected government activities have been written previously by one or several journalists. There were very few surprises in the contents of the diplomatic correspondence.

We might have been amazed that King Abdullah, Saudi Arabia, wanted the U.S. government to launch a military attack on Iran, especially when they are the chief financiers of terror groups, i.e. al-Qaeda. The information that the U.S. military was assisting the Yemeni government without their citizens knowledge was revealing, and could be fatally detrimental for their president, Ali Abdullah Saleh. Did we not surmise that Iran was receiving missiles from North Korea or that Chinese government hackers were accused of launching cyber attacks on US websites and networks? The controlled narrative is highly suspectas is the typical, non-reaction by Obama, Hillary’s emotionless, robotic defense of the administration’s foreign policy, Gibb’s arrogant response to the press corp about a guy with a computer and a website, and Gates stating that countries deal with the US because they need us. Also suspect is the fact that the U.S. intel or security division didn’t think that the initial leaks were important enough to make the government networks more secure after the first leak.

Another interesting point is that Hillary and other State Department employees were conducting damage control by calling countries prior to the leak. Who were they calling if they didn’t know what information would be leaked and what countries would be involved? Do you think they really called the leaders of all 195 countries in the world? Was Hillary hit broadside by a leak that she didn’t know about, and one that put her in a very bad light?

Who else was in the know about the information that would be dropped by Assange? The New York Times gave the White House a peak at what they planned to publish, but there must be more to this. Who made the decision as to what would be published? What was held back?

A diplomat or other government official wrote that “Russian President Dmitry Medvedev has ‘none of the bravado’ of ‘Alpha Male’ Vladimir Putin.” That is an opinion, and no one would deny that Putin comes across as a Man’s man or an extremely masculine man. All one has to do is view the way he likes being photographed. There is no question in my mind or in the opinions of others that Putin wants Medvedev’s job in 2012; that is his goal. That this statement comparing Medvedev and Putin was leaked at this time may be considered a vanity message for Putin while the START Treaty is stalled by Congress.

Obama’s priority appears to be the START Treaty with Russia. It was being held up by congressional members who wanted more information before they agree to the terms. A letter was written to Obama requesting answers before deliberations will commence. As written, it is the Russians who will benefit greatly, not the United States.

In a special photo op yesterday, while trying to validate himself, his motives, and the importance of the START Treaty, Obama pulled in Gen. Colin Powell for a meeting. Then he extolled the General’s treaty expertise and suggested that the General was in agreement with him and the treaty. This is important only in the context of other facts.

We question what is being leaked, how it was done, and who is really behind this security breach. We especially question the real motives of its engineers or composers. Perhaps it may become clearer as we examine bits and pieces of information that are not being said, rather than what is disclosed. Who is speaking out and who is not is also noteworthy. Perhaps like me, your antennae will rise when you read an interview conducted by Larry King with Vladimir Putin.

Putting seemingly disconnected events together might provide an answer. Are these connected to each other in any way? There is the leak that Putin probably had prior knowledge of the plot to murder the Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko in London, then we had the Russian sub trolling the Atlantic, the release of 10 Russian spies, the suspicious plane crash in Poland that killed the Polish President Lech Kaczynski and 96 others, Obama’s push for his rendition of the START Treaty, the vanity message for Putin, Obama’s photo-op with Colin Powell after discussing the treaty with him, and then a highly unusual interview with Putin by Larry King where Putin says the documents might be forgeries. Is there any relationship or connection between these occurrences?

When have you read a full transcript of an interview with Putin? Why would he think that the leaked documents could be forgeries? Unless he knew the answer. Are Russian spies Wikileak collaborators? Are they closeted within our military? So we are left to wonder if this is what the U.S. is now telling foreign leaders that these documents are forgeries and should be dismissed as such? Or does the forgery spin belong solely to the former KGB Russian spy, Putin? This spin might explain Hillary’s use of the word “alleged” documents that she said so many times in her speech addressing Wikileaks and the administration’s foreign policy; but then again it might not. Why did Putin accept an interview at this time and sort of scoff at the leaks? Why did Larry King, who is retiring shortly and has no ratings, get the assignment to speak with him?

When things don’t add up, it is precisely because they don’t add up. Is this all part of “their” plan and the beginning of the NWO? There are to many unanswered questions and far to many unusual circumstances and coincidences that make no sense to us. There must be a reason, but what is it?

Putin’s satellite interview with Larry King as provided by the Russian prime minister’s website http://premier.gov.ru

Larry King (as translated): Good evening. This is a very special evening for the Larry King show and our guest in the studio is once again Vladimir Putin, the Russian prime minister and formerly president of the Russian Federation. It is a great pleasure for me to welcome him to the Larry King show.

Vladimir Putin: Good evening. It’s evening here and morning there. Good morning, Larry. It is very good to see you again. I remember our first meeting, our interview.

Larry King: Mr. Prime Minister, thank you for joining us. Let us start right off. You could run for president again in 2012? Are you thinking about doing that?

Vladimir Putin: President Medvedev and I work together closely. We made up our minds long ago that we would take our decision concerning the 2012 elections in the interests of the Russian people.

Larry King: So your answer is “maybe.”

Vladimir Putin: We’ll see. The elections are still a long way away. They are slated for April 2012. I repeat, we will consult with each other and we will come to a decision that takes account of the economic, social and political situation in the country.

Larry King: OK, let us get to current things.

Vladimir Putin: By all means.

Larry King: What do you think of the leak of military and diplomatic correspondence by the WikiLeaks group?

Vladimir Putin: Some experts believe that somebody is deliberately “inflating” WikiLeaks. Building up the site’s authority in order to use it to further their political ends. That is one possible theory, and this is the opinion of experts, which has some currency in our country too. I think that if this is not the case, it shows that the diplomatic service should be more careful with its documents. Such leaks have happened before, in the previous era. I don’t see it as any kind of catastrophe.

Larry King: What about the statement by the US Defense Secretary Robert Gates that Russian democracy has disappeared and that the government is being run by the security services? What is your response to the American secretary of defense’s statement?

Vladimir Putin: I am personally acquainted with Mr Gates, I have met him on several occasions. I think he is a very nice man and not a bad specialist. But Mr Gates, of course, was one of the leaders of the US Central Intelligence Agency and today he is defense secretary. If he also happens to be America’s leading expert on democracy, I congratulate you.

Larry King: So he is wrong in saying that your country is being run by secret security services?

Vladimir Putin: He is profoundly wrong. Our country is run by the people of the Russian Federation through legitimately elected bodies of power and administration: through representative bodies (the parliament) and executive bodies (the president and the government of the Russian Federation).

As for democracy, this is a long-running argument we have been having with our American colleagues. I would like to recall that twice in the history of the United States the presidential candidate who ultimately became president of the United States won more votes in the electoral college but lost the popular vote. What’s democratic about that?

And when we tell our American colleagues that there are systemic problems in this sphere we hear, “Don’t poke your noses into our affairs. This is how things work here and this is the way it is going to be.” We are not butting in, but I would also like to advise our colleagues not to poke their noses into our affairs. This is the sovereign choice of the Russian people. The Russian people unequivocally backed democracy in the early 90s. They will not be swayed from this path. No one should have any doubts on that score. This is in Russia’s own interests. And we will definitely continue along this path.

The issue Mr Gates raised in the course of this diplomatic correspondence is clearly related to his desire to bring some pressure to bear on the allies over concrete issues. There are many such issues. Russia is seen as deserving this pressure because it is undemocratic: these measures have to be taken because there is no democracy there. We have heard this a thousand times. We have stopped paying attention to it. But it is still being used as an instrument of US foreign policy. I think this is an erroneous approach to take in the building of relations with the Russian Federation.

Larry King: How would you describe your relationship with President Medvedev? As you know, there are some who say that he is Robin and you are Batman, to refer to those all-American heroes. Or in fact, to get it straight, that you are Batman and he is Robin.

Vladimir Putin: Well, you know when Mr Medvedev and I were considering how to structure our relations and how to run the election campaign, the 2008 presidential election campaign, we were very well aware that many would try to create a split in our common approach to the building of the Russian state and the development of our economy. Because our interaction is a considerable factor in the country’s domestic policy. But it did not occur to us that it would be done in such an impudent, brazen and aggressive fashion.

Such claims of course are aimed at insulting one of us, at damaging our sense of pride and at provoking us into taking steps that would destroy our effective interaction in running the country. I have to tell you that we have already grown used to this. I urge all those who are engaged in such attempts to calm down.

Larry King: I hope to be able to visit your country someday soon and to meet you in person. Last time we met in New York, we were in the studio together, and now we are communicating via satellite. What is your assessment of the situation on the Korean Peninsula? You have said that there is a colossal danger that the conflict will intensify. Do you share that fear?

Vladimir Putin: Yes, the situation is acute and very worrying. It cannot but worry us because everything that is happening is happening in the immediate proximity of our borders.

But we sincerely hope that reason will prevail, that emotions will take the back seat and that a dialogue will begin. Reaching an agreement is impossible without dialogue.

Alongside our partners, including the United States, we are working hard towards resolving the North Korean problems, those connected with nuclear programmes, the settlement of the situation between the two parts of Korea, and at various stages this work has yielded a range of results, some were quite impressive and positive. I very much hope that we will be back on track with this positive work.

Larry King: China has proposed holding six-party talks: the two Koreas, China, Russia, Japan and the United States. Do you support this idea?

Vladimir Putin: The president takes the lead on our foreign policy, and the question should, in the first place, be directed to him, but overall I think that Russia would like to see this dialogue continue.

Larry King: Do you think that China should do more to resolve the situation, because it has great influence over North Korea?

Vladimir Putin: This is the US State Department’s position. But in principle we should do everything we can to normalize the situation. The People’s Republic of China has leverage, especially in economic terms, but it should be remembered that we must respect the interests of the Korean people, both those in its Northern and Southern parts.

We should be patient, get the tone of the dialogue right and formulate a common position for all the six states that are involved in this fairly complicated negotiating process. A common approach is a very important precondition for overall success.

Larry King: You share other states’ concerns that Iran is moving towards becoming a nuclear power. How does Russia feel about that?

Vladimir Putin: Iran has been implementing its nuclear programme for twenty years now and of late, in recent years, Iran has in one way or another indicated its readiness to engage in dialogue with the international community and with the IAEA. Yes, we are aware that questions remain concerning the early stages of the programme and we share the IAEA’s desire for exhaustive answers.

You will, of course, know that we are concerned about any indication of proliferation, about any possibility, even if it is a theoretical possibility for the proliferation of weapons of mass destruction. This applies to absolutely all states, including Iran. At the same time we have no grounds for suspecting Iran of seeking to possess nuclear weapons. But we are cooperating with all our partners, including the United States, within the framework of the United Nations. As you know, so far we have managed to agree on the decisions taken. Our position is open and Iran is aware of it. We will continue to cooperate with all participants in this process until the problem is entirely resolved. I very much hope that this resolution will transpire. I think this is in the interests not only of Iran’s neighbor, Israel, which has great fears about nuclear programmes, and the other parties involved in this process but also those of Iran and the Iranian people.

I see nothing reprehensible, nothing that infringes upon Iran’s national interests, in it opening up all its programmes and responding adequately to the legitimate interest that the international specialist agency, the IAEA, has taken in its work. I see nothing to fear here, but at the same time I am still of the opinion that Iran has the right to pursue nuclear programmes under the supervision of international organizations.

Larry King: There’s a lot of concern now about this new treaty. Your president, Medvedev, warned that there would be a new arms race if NATO and Moscow don’t agree on a joint missile shield. And what happens to the relations between the two countries? Will there be another arms race if the United States doesn’t ratify?

Vladimir Putin: No. In his state-of-the-nation address to the Russian parliament earlier today, President Medvedev said only that we made a proposal concerning the shared problem of security. He said that through joint effort and shared responsibility, we can eventually solve this problem.

But if there are only negative reactions to all of our proposals, and if a threat emerges on our borders in the form of a new incarnation of the Third Site programme, Russia will just have to protect itself using various means, including the deployment of new missile systems to counter the new threats to our borders and the development of new nuclear-missile technology. This is not our choice. We don’t want this. It’s not a threat. We are simply talking about what to expect if we can’t agree to work together. That’s all. Again, we don’t want to see this happen.

Larry King: Well, you’re saying it’s not a threat, but it does sound like a threat. The Wall Street Journal is reporting today that America believes that you’re moving short-range tactical nuclear warheads near NATO allies, as recently as this spring. Was that true?

Vladimir Putin: Larry, listen, I’d like to make this clear to you and to all Americans, or, at least, to the audience of your show today. It’s not Russia that is moving missiles close to your border; it’s the United States that is planning to deploy missiles near Russia’s border. We keep hearing that the purpose is to protect yourselves from the threat of a nuclear missile attack by Iran, for example. But Iran poses no such threat at the moment. And if anti-missile and radar systems are set up near our border, even in 2015, they will undermine our nuclear capabilities. So it’s only natural that we are alarmed by the prospect. And we are obligated to take some measures in response. This is a response; we are not making the first moves.

While in Lisbon, President Medvedev put forward some concrete proposals about NATO and Russia sharing responsibility for security in Europe. We could reach an agreement with NATO and, by extension, with the United States, on information sharing and on jointly managing these systems. Military experts can do it, provided there is goodwill. But we continue to be told, “We don’t want to take your interests into account, we are going to do whatever we want.” So we’ll just have to view it as a threat to our security, and we’ll be forced to respond accordingly. That’s what I’d like to get across to the American public.

Larry King: What is your assessment of President Obama?

Vladimir Putin: Assessing his performance is the responsibility of US voters, the people who voted him into office, and American citizens in general.

But as an outside observer, I can say that President Obama has been faced with some formidable challenges, primarily economic and social.

It’s not my place to judge whether he did the right thing by pushing for the healthcare law in Congress. But there’s no doubt, in my mind, that he did his best on this highly sensitive issue for Americans. He has done everything he can to respond to the aspirations of the American people, which he made the basis of his election platform. He made a promise, and he delivered.

As for his foreign policy, we are grateful that he has softened the rhetoric in US-Russian relations, and that, in terms of practical achievements, he has delayed the implementation of the Third Site programme for a missile defense shield in Europe. This has created new opportunities for dialogue; and we’ve won some time to try to translate the plan President Medvedev put forward in Lisbon into reality.

Larry King: Ten Russian sleeper agents were arrested in the United States earlier this year, then sent back to Russia in a spy swap. You met with them after their deportation. What was your impression? What was this all about? What did they tell you?

Vladimir Putin: We talked business for a bit. The conversation was wide-ranging.

Well, what can I say? These people deserve respect, I think. I said earlier, and I’d like to repeat this, that their activity in no way undermined the interests of the United States. As you know, these were deep-cover agents. This kind of agent has special objectives, and they are usually called on in times of crisis, for example when diplomatic ties are severed.

Thank God this isn’t the case in U.S.-Russian relations at the moment, and I hope it never will be.

Larry King: So they do no spying under your direction.

Vladimir Putin: They had their own assignments. Let me make it clear once again that we’re dealing here with deep-cover agents, who only become active during crises and when diplomatic ties are severed, when other forms of intelligence become ineffective or impossible. Again, those agents have not harmed the national interests of the United States. But it’s common knowledge that every country, including the United States, operates a foreign intelligence network of its own.

By the way, the methods employed by our special services differ in a good way from those used by US special services. Thank God, neither the agents in question or any other Russian intelligence officers are known to have been involved in creating secret prisons, kidnappings, or torture.

Larry King: The former USSR spent 9 years fighting in Afghanistan. In fact, I believe we discussed this the last time we were together ten years ago. Some call it the Soviet Union’s Vietnam. Do you think the United States will do any better in Afghanistan?

Vladimir Putin: First of all, I don’t think the comparison is accurate. Our troops withdrew from Afghanistan in a calm and orderly manner, and after the pullout, the Soviet-backed government remained in power for another three years. The Taliban managed to overthrow it only after the USSR collapsed, when Soviet assistance was no longer an option.

I believe the Soviet Union made a lot of mistakes in Afghanistan, the most serious being that we sent in troops. We should not have done this. This much is clear.

The ongoing presence of US and coalition forces in Afghanistan is another matter. As I said, our campaign in Afghanistan can’t be compared with the Vietnam War. Similarly, it would be wrong to compare the current US and international operations in Afghanistan to Russia’s back in the 1980s.

I believe that the coalition forces have an important and positive mission to accomplish in Afghanistan. We cannot and will not contribute militarily, but we are providing some non-military assistance to our partners from the United States and other coalition countries. We’ve agreed to allow transit (through our territory), both by air and over land, and we’re doing just that.

We also share important information, including intelligence obtained by our special agents, whom you mentioned a short while ago. These are all positive examples of cooperation, I think. There have been cases of Russian helicopter pilots rescuing US and Dutch troops under enemy fire.

And there are other ways of contributing to international efforts in Afghanistan. Providing assistance to the Afghan government and armed forces, for example. There is a wide range of cooperative measures, and we hope they’ll yield positive results.

Larry King: Let’s discuss the former president, George Bush. In his new memoir Decision Points, he describes you as a man who is sometimes charming, sometimes very serious, and cold-blooded. He said, when he first met you, that he looked into your eyes and saw your soul. How would you describe your relationship with the former president?

Vladimir Putin: They were warm – good, cordial, human relations. He visited me at home, and I visited him. I stayed at his ranch. We take different views of many problems but I can say one thing with complete confidence: George Bush, Jr., is a man of great integrity and a pleasant opposite number to have. He has a lovely family, too. I really enjoyed my time at his father’s home.

Larry King: I gather from that – you really liked him.

Vladimir Putin: I do like him as a person but, I repeat, we took different approaches to solving the same problems.

Larry King: Will you read his book?

Vladimir Putin: I have seen some extracts from it. I am not in complete agreement with everything he wrote, and I think there are some things he has forgotten about. I’ll remind him of them if we meet again.

Larry King: I know that’s you’re working on your English. You spoke in English at an International Olympic Committee meeting. You did an interview with Matthew Chance for CNN two years ago and spoke in English. Are you ready to start now, and address our audience in English?

Vladimir Putin: My English is very bad (in English). It is better to be precise speaking to you and avoid any mistakes. I am learning songs in English with my teacher, and we try to sing them together. It’s more of a game. It is not like proper language classes, just taking the language up again, as a break. But if we meet when you come to Moscow, I will try to talk to you in English. I understand a great deal, of course. At any rate, I do not need an interpreter when I meet with my colleagues in a semi-official or semi-informal atmosphere.

Larry King: OK. Later this week, FIFA will announce which country is to host the 2018 FIFA World Cup. Do you think you have a good chance of hosting it?

Vladimir Putin: I think we are in with a chance. I base this on our rivals’ emphasis that they have everything ready to host the World Cup. But why should a country that already has all the required facilities host the World Cup? FIFA’s philosophy involves promoting international football and extending its global reach. Eastern Europe has never hosted a World Cup, which is why Russia is a natural contender.

We have a problem, however. Mud has been thrown at FIFA members lately during this bidding race. Attempts have been made to discredit them in ways I think they really did not deserve. As an organization, FIFA does not only arrange football matches. It is, today, performing a crucial role in the world: not only does it promote a healthy lifestyle – turning a huge number of people, particularly young people, away from drugs and alcohol. It also builds bridges between people, nations and countries. This is a crucial function.

We are counting on FIFA members to make their decision in Russia’s favour.

Larry King: Who is acting like that?

Vladimir Putin: Many people in the race are trying to do that. We know that a great deal of information has appeared on the BBC, but accusations are one thing and proof is another. So I think these tactics amount to unfair competition in the bid to host the World Cup.

Larry King: Will you go to Zurich to make a personal appeal?

Vladimir Putin: You know, that’s something I thought about, of course. But I think that now, when FIFA members are coming under such pointed attacks and attempts to disgrace them, they need the space to make an objective decision without any external pressure.

As you know, I’ve been keen on sport all my life, and I love football but I don’t think I should appear there before the vote lest my presence be regarded as an attempt to exert some kind of pressure on the decision-making process.

Larry King: Something, Mr Prime Minister, I don’t think you’ve ever been asked. We have quite a dispute about it in America. What is the Russian policy towards gays and lesbians in your military?

Vladimir Putin: I’ve tried to answer similar questions before. There is a rather acute demographic problem in Russia, as in the rest of Europe. We are making serious efforts to improve the situation, and we are having success. I think we have the best indicators in Europe in terms of the rate of improvement. For the first time in the last 10 to 15 years, we are seeing a sustainable trend of rising births, and the country’s population has even increased somewhat this year.

As for same-sex marriages, they do not produce offspring, as you know. So we are fairly tolerant toward sexual minorities, however we think that the state should promote reproduction, support mothers and children, and look after their health.

Larry King: Are gays permitted to actively serve in your military and be able to say that they are gay?

Vladimir Putin: There is no ban on it. Sodomy was a criminal offence in the Soviet Union. It’s not a crime under current law. There are no prohibitions.

Larry King: You recently took part in a summit in St. Petersburg on saving the tiger. You hailed the actor Leonardo DiCaprio for managing to attend that meeting despite a lot of obstacles. What is your interest in the tiger?

Vladimir Putin: It’s not just tigers. I love nature. Thank God there are a lot of people in the world who feel like I do. I am just one of many.

As for tigers, my interest in them also has something to do with the United States, strange though it may seem. I once saw a news report on television about American and Russian experts working together in the [Russian] Far East to protect tigers. To be honest, I was ashamed in a way to see American experts helping their Russian partners to solve these problems. I went there and we developed a programme to protect tigers in the Far East.

On the whole, everything done in the Soviet Union and Russia has brought about improvements. Several decades ago, we had just twenty to thirty tigers, while now there are more than 500 thanks to our targeted efforts. But tigers are not our sole concern. We protect other endangered animal species, too, and I’m counting on more and more people getting involved in the search for solutions to these problems because many people are eager to help. They just don’t have the opportunity. I do, so I think it is my duty to help.

Larry King: Some personal questions in our remaining moments, Mr Prime Minister. And again, I hope next year to visit and spend some time with you in Moscow, and bring the family as well. You seem to keep your family life private. Many of our viewers may not know that you have two daughters. Why do you tend to shield the family?

Vladimir Putin: Unfortunately, Russia has many problems with terrorism, as you know. It is our duty to think about the safety of our family members and our children – especially our daughters. They live a normal, ordinary life. They go to university. They are content. They have friends. Everything is alright. But I don’t think it’s necessary to force them into the spotlight, and besides they don’t want it.

Larry King: Does your wife enjoy being a first lady?

Vladimir Putin: She’s not the first lady. The president’s wife is the first lady in Russia.

Larry King: Did she enjoy being the first lady?

Vladimir Putin: Generally speaking, she does not enjoy publicity. I think she handled the burden with poise, and she certainly managed her responsibilities.

Larry King: Do you plan a trip to the United States anytime soon?

Vladimir Putin: There are no plans for a visit. The issue is the specific reasons for making the visit. Currently, I’m focused on the economy above all. If there are reasons requiring a visit in the future, I will be happy to come meet with my colleagues and discuss current issues and the prospects for our cooperation.

Larry King: Do you keep in touch with Mr Gorbachev at all?

Vladimir Putin: I meet with him, though very rarely. He calls me occasionally. So we keep in touch.

Larry King: Mr Prime Minister, finally are you optimistic at all about the state of this world or pessimistic?

Vladimir Putin: There are more problems today than ever before. But I am an optimist, and I think that we can reach agreements on even the most acute problems, which might seem irresolvable to us now. If we work together, we will ensure that our countries will continue to make progress, and we will solve key problems regarding security and development.

Larry King: Mr Prime Minister, I thank you so much and look forward to seeing you again soon on your soil.

Vladimir Putin: Larry, please do come to Moscow. I’d love to see you. You’ve never been to Moscow, and I’m sure you will like it here.

Larry King: I thank you again so much, Vladimir Putin, prime minister of Russia. Thank you.

Vladimir Putin: Can I ask a question? I’m not sure why, but the king is leaving us. There are many gifted and interesting people working in the American media, but there is only one King. I’m not asking why he’s leaving us, but I want to know when we will be able to say, “Long Live the King!”? When will there be another figure as popular around the world as you are?

UPDATE: As I was completing this article, the U.K.’s Telegraph is headlining another of Wikileak disclosures. Vladimir Putin probably had prior knowledge of the plot to murder the Russian dissident Alexander Litvinenko in London, one of America’s top diplomats alleged in a leaked embassy cable.

“You are witnessing the staged collapse of the United States by domestic enemies within; to force us into a world government without the need of a nuclear war. – Steve Cooper

No, the psychological profile of the person that did this is someone that hates this country, an anti-Government, anti-war Leftist or a 9/11 truther. The destruction of capitalism is more important than the safety of the United States.

It would not shock me if this person had ties to the Russian FSB/KGB as well, due to the depth of this leak. This WikiLeaks clown might also be working for the Russians as well. Sure, I know the Russian FSB threatened to take down WikiLeaks if they released any Russian documents. Well, that did not happen and that might just be a smoke screen so people can not see the association between WikiLeaks and the FSB/KGB.

No red flags there! What can the Russians do with Uranium? Not one mine, but two major ones! I guess the House members got their answer from Timothy! To hell with national security!

In October, four U.S. House members sent a letter to Treasury Secretary Timothy F. Geithner to block the sale of the two Wyoming mines, citing national security concerns. According to the Wyoming Business Journal, “the sale would give the Russians control of up to 20 percent of the U.S. national uranium extraction capability along with a controlling interest in one of the nation’s largest uranium mining sites.”

The National Security Agency (NSA) is conducting a counterintelligence probe at its Fort Meade, Md., headquarters in a top-secret hunt for a Russian agent, according to a former intelligence official close to the agency. The former official said the probe grew out of the case of 10 Russian “illegals,” or deep-cover spies, who were uncovered last summer and sent back to Moscow after the defection of Col. Alexander Poteyev, a former SVR foreign intelligence officer who reportedly fled to the U.S. shortly before Russian President Dmitry Medvedev visited here in June.

Col. Poteyev is believed to be the source who disclosed the U.S.-based agent network.

NSA counterintelligence officials suspect that members of the illegals network were used by Russia’s SVR spy agency to communicate with one or more agents inside the agency, which conducts electronic intelligence gathering and code-breaking.

One sign that the probe is fairly advanced is that FBI counterintelligence agents are involved in the search.

“They are looking for one or more Russian spies that NSA is convinced reside at Fort Meade and possibly other DoD intel offices, like DIA [Defense Intelligence Agency],” the former official said. “NSA is convinced that at least one is at NSA.”

Some of the 10 illegals who were posing as U.S. citizens helped service Russian agents working inside the U.S. intelligence community, the former official said.

We never knew why the 10 spies were let go either! All in a days work for Holder and company to let a few of your common, normal, everyday, illegal, fraudulent, enemy, spies return to their homeland where they were celebrated for jobs well done! They are all ” Highly respected” deep cover agents too, said Putin. They only are called upon in a crisis!

Good point, Bridgette. Something else I had forgotten all about. And the lamestream went off on the tangent, drooling over the beautiful one. Anything to distract from the fact that there were spies in our country on Barry’s watch, and he let them go. Why?

Bridgette: Great post! I just put some comments on the Wikileaks thread that I’m copying here. It’s more about Russia and Hillary. Seems State Dept. is fighting back against Gates and his Pentagon spokesman Morrell:

State Dept. disagrees with Gates. “’It’s going to complicate U.S. diplomacy and international cooperation for a long time after the headlines stop,’ said the official, who was authorized to speak to reporters on condition of anonymity. . . . The senior official said that Secretary of State Hillary Clinton has already acted to try to ‘mitigate’ the effects of the release of thousands of private conversations, leader assessments, and internal instructions. According to the official, 186 countries have been contacted by the U.S. –’virtually everyone who will take our calls.’”

So she has contacted 186 countries! That must have been some job. I don’t know what to think of all this. You’re spot on to connect the dots to that plane crash that killed the Polish president. Trading away the missile defense for Poland and Czechoslovakia was a major double cross. Russia is up to its eyeballs in that crash.

The group funding the defense of Wikileaks conspirator Manning is associated with this group:
The Alliance for Global Justice, a pro-Chavez, pro-Castro, pro-Sandanista, pro-COMMUNIST organization, among other things. It’s a tax-exempt corp., too.

I had forgotten about the missile defense fiasco for Poland and Czechoslovakia. Remember that Obama announced that the missile shield wouldn’t be built on the Polish anniversary of their independence from Russia! They were one of the first allies to be run over by the bus.

That’s funny Miri.. one of those citations starts with:
1. MYTH: Hugo Chavez is a dictator
REALITY: Hugo Chavez was elected president in 1998 with 56% of the vote!
I guess the president can’t be a dictator! Who are they kidding?

“You are witnessing the staged collapse of the United States by domestic enemies within; to force us into a world government without the need of a nuclear war. – Steve Cooper

No, the psychological profile of the person that did this is someone that hates this country, an anti-Government, anti-war Leftist or a 9/11 truther. The destruction of capitalism is more important than the safety of the United States.

It would not shock me if this person had ties to the Russian FSB/KGB as well, due to the depth of this leak. This WikiLeaks clown might also be working for the Russians as well. Sure, I know the Russian FSB threatened to take down WikiLeaks if they released any Russian documents. Well, that did not happen and that might just be a smoke screen so people can not see the association between WikiLeaks and the FSB/KGB.

“China wouldn’t be too gentle with even a small-time Manning equivalent. If he were discovered he’d be hauled outside, shot twice in the back of the head, and his family would be sent a bill for the ammunition used in the execution. . . . Assange may know how Russia treated its most important leaker of this young century. Former KGB Lt. Col. Alexander Litvinenko had escaped Russia and was living in London, writing a book about how the KGB had fomented war in Chechnya and terrorized Russians. Litvinenko was assassinated in 2006 with a lethal dose of Polonium-210. If Assange were to publish Russian secrets, the KGB’s successor organization – the SVR — would probably take a few simple steps to prevent repetition. It would kill him, his wife and kids, his parents, and his dog. . . . Instead of defending ourselves, the White House is cavalier about the effect of WikiLeaks releases on our diplomacy. . . . U.S. Cyber Command has enormous defensive capabilities and employs – directly or indirectly – many of the best computer scientists in the world. It, and several intelligence agencies, have the ability to turn their defensive skills to offense and take down WikiLeaks. It’s not that we can’t mount an attack: it’s that the president lacks the will to even try.”

It’s been suggested that the POTUS ordered them NOT to try. Why would that be? Because he wants it?

I was digging on royals last week and I keep finding links to a part of Russia to Poland over and over. I keep thinking on the Polish President and his plane crash alot too. It is not just a coincidence that this is coming out now I am sure. I think also on Ronni Chasen and her death last week and her relationship to Natalie Wood as well as her name Chasen-Chasin ( Chase ?) It all connects. I am just missing a few key players but I betcha….That is a big possible and those connections are old and still there I feel. Wood..WEB DuBois…DuBois means Wood in French. It is there….A hot connection.

A picture has emerged apparently showing Russia’s Prime Minister Vladimir Putin in his former days as a KGB officer. The 20-year old photo depicts two world leaders – US President Ronald Reagan and the Soviet leader Mikhail Gorbachev – in Moscow.

But, according to the man who took the photo, it also captures Mr Putin disguised as a tourist. Pete Souza, now President Obama’s official photographer, captured the moment when he worked for President Reagan during the political thaw that soon ended the Cold War.

Mr Reagan took a stroll around Red Square accompanied by the Russian leader, who then introduced him to a group of tourists. In an interview, Mr Souza recounted being surprised at the “pointed” questions these supposed tourists asked the US leader. They included searching enquiries on the state of human rights in the US.

The identity of the man on the left of the photo – complete with camera round his neck – was later revealed and “verified” to Mr Souza as none other than Mr Putin. The planting of KGB officers as bystanders was a common practice in Soviet times. During the tense stand-off of the Cold War, they would be used to challenge foreign leaders during visits to Russia.

Russia waged a covert war against Georgia that included missile attacks, arms shipments to anti-government rebels and car bombings since 2004, a newly disclosed U.S. Embassy cable says.

Among the secret war operations were a 2007 helicopter gunship attack on the headquarters of a pro-government group in the Georgian province of Abkhazia, and the murder of Georgian police officers in the town of Gory. Known inside the Russian security services as “active measures,” the tactics employed against Georgia included political disinformation campaigns, industrial sabotage and assassinations.

“The variety and extent of the active measures suggests the deeper goal is turning Georgia from its Euroatlantic orientation back into the Russian fold,” said the cable, signed by the U.S. ambassador to Georgia, John Tefft.

The July 20, 2007, cable, labeled “confidential,” was written nearly one year before Russian military forces invaded Georgia, and raised questions about President Obama’s reset policy with Russia. The White House has limited its opposition to Russia’s bullying of former Soviet republics like Georgia to public statements. In the interim, the administration has touted an arms control treaty and Russian cooperation at the United Nations as evidence of better cooperation between the two cold war rivals.

The Obama administration, despite public denials, held secret talks with Russia aimed at reaching a ballistic missile defense agreement that Moscow ultimately rejected in May, according to an internal State Department report. Disclosure of the report to The Washington Times comes as Russian President Dmitry Medvedev on Tuesday pressed for a new anti-ballistic missile treaty, warning that a failure to reach an agreement would trigger a new strategic arms race.

The internal report contradicts congressional testimony by Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton and Defense Secretary Robert M. Gates in June denying a missile defense deal was in the works.
Debate over missile defense talks with Russia could affect the administration’s push to win Senate ratification of the New Strategic Arms Reduction Treaty [START] before the end of the year.

New START opponents in the Senate have said the treaty, which limits offensive nuclear arms, could be used by the Russians to constrain U.S. missile defenses. Moscow has threatened to withdraw from the treaty if the United States expands its missile defenses, currently on ships and at bases in Alaska and California.

WikiLeaks cables condemn Russia as ‘mafia state’
Kremlin relies on criminals and rewards them with political patronage, while top officials collect bribes ‘like a personal taxation system’
1 December 2010

Russia is a corrupt, autocratic kleptocracy centred on the leadership of Vladimir Putin, in which officials, oligarchs and organised crime are bound together to create a “virtual mafia state”, according to leaked secret diplomatic cables that provide a damning American assessment of its erstwhile rival superpower.

Arms trafficking, money laundering, personal enrichment, protection for gangsters, extortion and kickbacks, suitcases full of money and secret offshore bank accounts in Cyprus: the cables paint a bleak picture of a political system in which bribery alone totals an estimated $300bn a year, and in which it is often hard to distinguish between the activities of the government and organised crime.

Among the most striking allegations contained in the cables, which were leaked to the whistleblowers’ website WikiLeaks, are:
• Russian spies use senior mafia bosses to carry out criminal operations such as arms trafficking.

• Law enforcement agencies such as the police, spy agencies and the prosecutor’s office operate a de facto protection racket for criminal networks.

• Rampant bribery acts like a parallel tax system for the personal enrichment of police, officials and the KGB’s successor, the federal security service (FSB).

• Investigators looking into Russian mafia links to Spain have compiled a list of Russian prosecutors, military officers and politicians who have dealings with organised crime networks.

• Putin is accused of amassing “illicit proceeds” from his time in office, which various sources allege are hidden overseas.

Grinda said the FSB had two ways to eliminate “OC leaders who do not do what the security services want them to do”. The first was to kill them. The second was to put them in jail to “eliminate them as a competitor for influence”.

A spokesman for Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin has rejected allegations that his government has links with organised crime.

Dmitry Peskov was responding to the latest leaked diplomatic cables published by the Wikileaks website. He said the dispatches, if they were authentic, showed that some diplomats were ignorant and unprofessional.

Referring to allegations about Mr Putin’s personal wealth, Mr Peskov called them ridiculous. Asked about allegations that Mr Putin had billions of dollars hidden in Swiss bank accounts, Mr Peskov likened them to “pulp fiction”.

The cables published by Wikileaks paint a picture of a corrupt Russia centred around the leadership of Mr Putin.

SYDNEY: United States Secretary of State Hillary Clinton viewed Russian Prime Minister Vladimir Putin as a “behind the scenes puppeteer” dissatisfied with his role, a diplomatic cable revealed by WikiLeaks shows.

The confidential State Department cable details a March 2009 discussion between Clinton and Australia’s then prime minister Kevin Rudd in Washington, in which Rudd asked for insights into Russian politics given he was soon to meet President Dmitry Medvedev.

“The Secretary said Medvedev was looking for legitimacy and positioning vis-a-vis PM Putin,” the confidential cable from the State Department said.
“…even as Putin was dissatisfied with the role he has carved out for himself — behind-the-scenes puppeteer and lead on energy policy — but somewhat bound through 2012 since he had ceded other issues to Medvedev.”

When Rudd asked whether Medvedev could be more liberal than Putin, Clinton “indicated Medvedev’s desire for status and respect could cause him to be.”

They included comments that all the power and decision-making authority rests with the former KGB agent Putin and not the more liberal formal leader Dmitry Medvedev.

Obama knew of the WikiLeak dump (he sanctioned the last two), and did nothing, virtually assuring the release of the documents and its incalcuable damage to our great nation.

And the media’s silence on this borders on criminal negligence. As one Puff Ho-ster opines, they are “so in the tank for Obama that they drowned. That’s the only explanation I can come up with for their silence.”

Why is Obama getting a free pass over WikiLeaks?
Now check this out. Where does he think he is? Arabia? And who the hell does Obama think he is, the goddamn caliph? Over at the Puff Ho:

State Department To Columbia University Students: DO NOT Discuss WikiLeaks On Facebook, Twitter (hat tip Gulchwoman)

Talking about WikiLeaks on Facebook or Twitter could endanger your job prospects, a State Department official warned students at Columbia University’s School of International and Public Affairs this week.

An email from SIPA’s Office of Career Services went out Tuesday afternoon with a caution from the official, an alumnus of the school. Students who will be applying for jobs in the federal government could jeopardize their prospects by posting links to WikiLeaks online, or even by discussing the leaked documents on social networking sites, the official was quoted as saying.

“[The alumnus] recommends that you DO NOT post links to these documents nor make comments on social media sites such as Facebook or through Twitter,” the Office of Career Services advised students. “Engaging in these activities would call into question your ability to deal with confidential information, which is part of most positions with the federal government.”

Why Columbia University? Why Columbia and not others? Is there someone there that knows something? Is there information in their network system that could implicate people that are associated with that fine upstanding university?

Sounds like a dictatorship more and more doesn’t it?…silence the dissidents!

If we find you tried to get information to be informed, you can be eliminated from our secret programs. You will show you can’t be trusted with important information. You would be a security risk!
Who will investigate? Who put out the memo from Career Services? That is where to start looking. Who told them to send out that warning or THREAT to students? This is Totally Bizarre.

Hey, Obama and company…You can’t be trusted and for these massive security breaches, you should be fired. You did nothing and now you are trying to cover your behinds! Rank Amateurs.

Probably Columbia because that program there on public affairs is just a big funnel for progressives into the government. School of International and Public Affairs? Maybe it’s like the East-West Center at U of HI. Breeding ground for Marxists.

The Pentagon official said investigators now believe Manning logged into a system called the Secret Internet Protocol Router Network, which essentially provides military members who have appropriate security clearances access to classified e-mails and the military’s classified internet system. But the official emphasized passwords and other control measures such as physical access are needed to log onto specific systems that provide information classified at the highest levels.

I couldn’t tell you what SIPRNet is, and nothing jumps out to me as odd in that paragraph (except for maybe the last sentence). But when X read it, he couldn’t e-mail me fast enough. According to him, what’s been reported above is simply impossible (again, the “quotes” have been changed/paraphrased to protect X’s identity):

Jon, this is crazy. Let me break this down for you. SIPRNet is a network owned and operated by the Department of Defense. In short, every military branch has its own intelligence organizations (except for the Marines because it is technically part of the Navy, so it uses the Navy’s systems).

Anyway, SIPRNet is a not connected to the Department of State’s systems: it’s separate.PFC Manning wouldn’t have been able to access the Department of State information via SIPRNet — he just couldn’t. I‘ll leave it at that because I can’t give more information.

X included a link to a site that explains SIPRNet and seems to back up his claims. It blew me away. Here’s what it says in part:

The Secret Internet Protocol Router Network (SIPRNET) is the Department of Defense’s largest network for the exchange of classified information and messages at the SECRET level. It supports the Global Command and Control System, the Defense Message System, and numerous other classified warfighting and planning applications. Although the SIPRNET uses the same communications procedures as the Internet, it has dedicated and encrypted lines that are separate from all other communications systems. [Emphasis added]

The story goes that once upon a time the Defense Dept. had their own “internet” (JWICS) and the Dept. of State had theirs (SIPR-Net). After 9/11, the GWB administration wanted more intelligence sharing, so they linked the two databases. That’s how, supposedly, Manning could jump over from the Pentagon system to go surfing on the SIPR-Net. Now, too late and months after the first Wikileak, they have finally disconnected the connection, which no doubt many are happy with because at one time the CIA/State Dept. accused the Pentagon of running their own intelligence agency. The Neo-cons, that is. The guys the Plame faction of CIA were “at war” with, instead of all being at war with the people trying to kill us. Anyway, it matters not because at one time, the SIPR-Net was set up to NOT EVER ALLOW downloading of information from the network to transportable media, like disks labeled “Lady Gaga“. At some mysterious point in time, they changed that and allowed downloads.

What I want to know, and what nobody seems to know or be asking, is when that change was made, by whom, and why.

I read over the weekend that spies-moles try to get embedded into the DOS because their is little turnover there. Once they are in, they are in. We now supposedly have a spy in our Gov. Maybe a hero or two should try looking there ?

This goes back to the Russian spies. Those are just the ones that were caught..not the ones that are left. There was also that couple that were caught earlier this year trying to sell secrets. If I recall they had worked for the government or had access to government documents for 20 + years. Add in all of the Czars, Muslims, etc. that Obama and company has brought into the system WITHOUT VETTING. Even Obama himself who was NOT VETTED!

This is a security breakdown by the FBI and CIA…and it was Obama that told them it wasn’t necessary. Anyone else remember that?

The Ulsterman Report: Glenn Beck on Wikileaks and Soros – One and the Same?

Open Society attorney Mark Stephens has, or is, providing legal counsel to Wikileaks founder Julian Assange. Assange certainly appears to subscribe to the same “one-government” open society utopia long supported by Soros. And yet, a direct link between the two men, minus the legal representation of Stephens, remains unclear.

Perhaps the near future will paint a more clear picture of this possible connection. Julian Assange has most recently indicated that it will not be governments that are exposed in the next batch of leaks, but rather, financial institutions – one in particular that has yet to be revealed. It is the world of finance that generated Soros’ empire. Will the temporary debilitation of the financial markets that may result from the apparently soon-to-come Wikileaks once again prove a financial windfall to Soros, just like the time Soros took advantage of the collapsing British Pound via his Global Macro hedge fund. On that particular example, Soros is said to have earned one billion dollars – overnight.

Is Glenn Beck correct? Is it the hand of George Soros behind the Wikileaks scandals? There appears enough evidence to certainly suggest the possibility, if not quite enough
to suggest a probability. If the next Wikileaks document dump does in fact impact the financial markets in a way that Soros directly benefits from, such potential probability will likely go directly to certainty.

I am thinking that we have forgotten about Maurice Strong who also might be involved. With so many Soros connections, the influence of Strong has been swept under the rug. We probably need to revisit him.

A new storm cloud may be on the horizon for President Obama over evidence that Moscow may have coaxed Georgian nationals into planting a bomb outside the U.S. embassy in Georgia’s capital of Tbilisi…The bomb detonated but caused no damage near the embassy in the attack in September.

Georgia’s Interior Ministry apprehended six Georgians who are internally displaced persons from the Georgian breakaway province of Abkhazia. Two other perpetrators remain at large, believed to have escaped to Gali in Abkhazia following the bombing. Russia gained effective control over Abkhazia following its invasion of Georgia in August 2008 and the defeat of the U.S. trained and equipped Georgian armed forces.

The U.S. State Department has sent investigators to Georgia where a meeting is scheduled with Georgian investigators.

Georgian Interior Ministry officials say that the alleged bombers have made videotaped confessions and claim that Russian Maj. Yevgeniy Borisov was behind the bombing of the U.S. embassy and a series of other bombings in Tbilisi that followed in the ensuing months

Russia could not attack us directly without a heavy attack coming back at them. But Russia could use Jihadists as proxies to attack us. And the Marxists in our own government would make sure that any hints of a Russian connection would be removed from the archives/shredded/destroyed.

Russia has suggested that Julian Assange should be awarded the Nobel peace prize, in an unexpected show of support from Moscow for the jailed WikiLeaks founder. In what appears to be a calculated dig at the US, the Kremlin urged non-governmental organisations to think seriously about “nominating Assange as a Nobel Prize laureate”.

Russia’s reflexively suspicious leadership appears to have come round to WikiLeaks, having decided that the ongoing torrent of disclosures are ultimately far more damaging and disastrous to America’s long-term geopolitical interests than they are to Russia’s.

Subsequent disclosures, however, that Nato had secretly prepared a plan in case Russia invaded its Baltic neighbours have left the Kremlin smarting. Today Russia’s foreign minister Sergei Lavrov said Nato had to explain why it privately considered Russia an enemy while publicly describing it warmly as a “strategic partner” and ally.

Nato should make clear its position on WikiLeaks cables published by the Guardian alleging that the alliance had devised plans to defend Poland, Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia against Russia, Lavrov said.

Please continue to leak. Please leak everything in plain English and drop leaflets onto bases in Afghanistan. Please tell our military every single thing you know. Please, do tell. Please let our People know. Just like we do when we when we want to get messages to the Peoples of other Countries when we are about to blow their governments to pieces.

Please leak to us in America what happened in Russia when the Polish government was eliminated. Please drop leaflets on every city in America.

Nobel Peace Prizes should not just be bestowed upon usurper Heads of States with bogus aliases, you know.

Remember Obama’s fight to get START approved and he promised that the preamble meant nothing..and those in opposition said it did. Well, guess what, Putin says it stands too. Dufuss Obama..so Russia gets to make changes and yet they told the US that they couldn’t make any changes or they would pull out. Great negotiating work once again Obama. Great set-up. Those that were worried about missiles being part of this treaty, and Obama said they weren’t. They are.
Russia nears arms pact approval, warns on pullout
Fri Jan 14, 2011 Snips

MOSCOW (Reuters) – Russia’s parliament moved closer to approving a landmark arms reduction treaty with Washington Friday by amending domestic legislation to stress that Moscow could withdraw from the pact if it felt threatened by the West.

The amendments required for Russia to ratify the New START treaty do not change the pact itself and were introduced before the second of three ratification votes in the State Duma, the lower house of parliament.

New START will commit each side to ceilings of 1,550 warheads on deployed strategic missiles and bombers within seven years and establish verification rules to replace those that expired in 2009 with the 1991 START I treaty.

Duma international affairs committee chairman Konstantin Kosachyov said the amendments would “restore balance” after the U.S. Senate irked Russia with its interpretations of the treaty.

The amendments stipulate that Russia could withdraw if military deployments or even plans by the United States or NATO jeopardize its security. They highlight lingering rifts over U.S. plans for a European anti-missile shield and Russian concerns over other weapons it fears the United States or NATO could deploy.

The U.S. Senate stressed that a clause in the pact’s preamble acknowledging an “interrelationship” between strategic offensive and defensive arms placed no legal constraint on U.S. missile defense plans. The Duma ratification law says the points in the preamble are “indisputable” and must not be ignored.

In approving the treaty, the U.S. Senate ordered Obama to seek talks with Moscow within a year on cutting the former Cold War foes’ arsenals of shorter-range tactical nuclear weapons, whose numbers are lopsided in Russia’s favor.

A top Kremlin official has told the United States Russia wants “red button” rights to a new US-backed missile defence system for Europe, a move that would allow it to influence the shield’s day-to-day operational use.

Sergey Ivanov, Russia’s deputy prime minister, made the controversial demand during a visit to the United States where he met with top officials including Hillary Clinton, the US Secretary of State. “We insist on only one thing,” he said of the nascent US-backed missile defence shield. “That we are an equal part of it.” “In practical terms, that means that our office will sit for example in Brussels and agree on a red-button push to launch an interceptor missile, regardless of whether the missile is launched from Poland, Russia or the UK.”

Russia has been pushing hard for a prominent role in the new missile shield for months but with little noticeable success as Washington and its allies remain deeply skeptical of Russia’s reliability as a political and military partner.

Robert Gates, the US defence secretary, tried to pacify the Kremlin last month by offering to share information about the new system and by offering to build a joint data centre. But Russian government officials have since made it clear that such a compromise does not go far enough.

President Barack Obama diluted Washington’s original plans to build a missile defence shield around facilities in Poland and the Czech Republic in the face of fierce Russian opposition.

In September 17, 2009, The White House issued a statement saying that the US “no longer planned to move forward” with the project. According to President Obama, new intelligence had shown Iran was pursuing short-range and medium-range missile development, rather than long-range, necessitating a shift in strategy.[28][29] The outlines of a reformulated, scaled-down project began to emerge in October, 2009.[8]

After the GBI cancellation, Vice resident Joe Biden visited Poland in 2009 to “mend relations” by announcing the SM-3 deployment plan (see two sections below for details of the new plan). Polish sources complained that the new plan no long gave Poland an exclusive role (because an SM-3 site was also planned for Romania).[30]

In 2010 cables leaked by Wikileaks showed that Polish diplomats felt more threatened by Russia than by Iran.[31] The (leaked) responses from Pentagon show that Alexander Vershbow sought to assuage that the missile shield, including the SM-3 alternative, was adaptable to “hypothetical” threats.[32]

Polish President Lech Kaczynski and some of the country’s highest military and civilian leaders died on Saturday when the presidential plane crashed as it came in for a landing in thick fog in western Russia, killing 96, officials said.

As news of Muś’ death hit headlines, the head of the Polish parliamentary commission looking into the crash, Antoni Macierewicz, said that Muś was one of two key witnesses in the case. With Muś dead, key witness Artur Wosztyl should be put in protective custody, Macierewicz said.